Benvindo On the Limits of Constitutional Adjudication

Deconstructing Balancing and Judicial Activism
2010
ISBN: 978-3-642-11434-2
Verlag: Springer
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 421 Seiten

Juliano Z. Benvindo investigates the current movement of constitutional courts towards political activism, especially by focusing on the increasing use of the balancing method as a 'rational' justification for this process. From the critical perception of the serious risks of this movement to democracy, the book takes as examples two constitutional realities, Germany and Brazil, in order to discuss the rationality, correctness, and legitimacy of constitutional decisions within this context. Through a dialogue between Jacques Derrida's deconstruction and Jürgen Habermas's proceduralism, the author confronts Robert Alexy's defense of the balancing method as well as those two constitutional realities. This confrontation leads to the introduction of the concept of limited rationality applied to constitutional democracy and constitutional adjudication, which affirms the double bind of history and justice as a condition for a practice of decision-making committed to the principle of separation of powers.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Benvindo, Juliano Zaiden

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Acknowledgements;8
2;Contents;10
3;Introduction;14
4;Part I: German and Brazilian Constitutional Cultures: Constitutional Adjudication and Activism;22
4.1;Chapter 1: An Approach to Decision-Making;23
4.1.1;1.1 Introduction;23
4.1.2;1.2 The Crucifix Case;24
4.1.3;1.3 The Cannabis Case;31
4.1.4;1.4 The Ellwanger Case;39
4.1.5;1.5 Final Words;49
4.2;Chapter 2: Balancing Within the Context of German Constitutionalism: The Bundesverfassungsgericht´s Shift to Activism;51
4.2.1;2.1 Introduction;51
4.2.2;2.2 Balancing Within the Triadic Framework of the Principle of Proportionality: A Brief Introduction;59
4.2.3;2.3 The Bundesverfassungsgericht in the Postwar Crisis: The New Representative of the Legal and Social Order;68
4.2.4;2.4 The Bundesverfassungsgericht´s Shift to Activism: From Subjective Rights to Objective Principles and the Consequences in Judicial Review;77
4.2.5;2.5 The Constitutional Scholarship Reaction Against the Bundesverfassungsgericht´s Shift to Politics and the Irrationalism of Balancing;88
4.2.6;2.6 Final Words;100
4.3;Chapter 3: Balancing Within the Context of Brazilian Constitutionalism: The Supremo Tribunal Federal´s Shift to Activism;102
4.3.1;3.1 Introduction;102
4.3.2;3.2 The Supremo Tribunal Federal in the Democratization Process: the Federal Constitution of 1988 and the Opening to Activism;107
4.3.3;3.3 Balancing in the Decisions of the Supremo Tribunal Federal: The Quest for Rationality in Decision-Making;128
4.3.4;3.4 Final Words;149
5;Part II: The Debate on the Rationality of Balancing;151
5.1;Chapter 4: The Aim to Rationalize Balancing Within the Context of Constitutional Courts´ Activism;152
5.1.1;4.1 Introduction: The Quest for a Systematization and Rationalization of Balancing;152
5.1.2;4.2 Robert Alexy´s Special Case Thesis (Sonderfallthese);156
5.1.3;4.3 The Quest for the Rationality of Balancing: The Core of Robert Alexy´s Theory of Constitutional Rights;160
5.1.4;4.4 Final Words;174
5.2;Chapter 5: When Différance Comes to Light: Balancing Within the Context of Deconstruction;177
5.2.1;5.1 Introduction;177
5.2.2;5.2 Différance and the Political-Legal Realm of Deconstruction;182
5.2.2.1;5.2.1 Jacques Derrida and Différance;182
5.2.2.2;5.2.2 Différance and Constitutional Democracy: The Democracy to Come;190
5.2.2.3;5.2.3 The to Come in the Negotiation Between Constitutionalism and Democracy;198
5.2.2.4;5.2.4 Différance Within the Context of Decision-Making: The Negotiation Between Law and Justice and the First Insight into Legitimacy;202
5.2.3;5.3 Balancing Within the Context of Différance;210
5.2.3.1;5.3.1 Introduction;210
5.2.3.2;5.3.2 Balancing and the Logos of Correctness-Rationality;212
5.2.3.2.1;5.3.2.1 Previous Considerations;212
5.2.3.2.2;5.3.2.2 The First Metaphysics of the Logos of Correctness-Rationality: The Rationality and Correctness of the Analytical-Structural Framework;214
5.2.3.2.2.1;The Claim to Correctness as a Logos of Correctness;214
5.2.3.2.2.2;The Claim to Rationality as the Logos of Rationality and the Opening to The Claim to the Other´s Otherness;220
5.2.3.2.3;5.3.2.3 The Second Metaphysics of the Logos of Correctness-Rationality: Principles as Optimization Requirements, Principles as Moralizing Principles;226
5.2.3.3;5.3.3 Balancing and the Logos of Legitimacy;234
5.2.3.3.1;5.3.3.1 The Elementary Question of Legitimacy: Who Are the People?;234
5.2.3.3.2;5.3.3.2 The Logos of Legitimacy in the Structure of Balancing;247
5.2.4;5.4 Final Words;255
5.3;Chapter 6: When Procedures Towards Mutual Understanding Come to Light: Balancing Within the Context of Proceduralism;258
5.3.1;6.1 Introduction;258
5.3.2;6.2 The Claim to Coherence in Robert Alexy´s View: When Rights Lapse into General Practical Discourse;261
5.3.3;6.3 The Post-Metaphysical Response to Balancing as an Indispensable Instrument for Coherence: The Coherence and the Single Right Answer Within Democratic Proceduresof Opinion – and Will Formation;265
5.3.3.1;6.3.1 Introduction;265
5.3.3.2;6.3.2 Klaus Günther´s View: Coherence Through the Distinction Between Discourses of Justification and Discourses of Application;266
5.3.3.3;6.3.3 Ronald Dworkin´s View: Integrity in Legal Reasoning and the Claim to the Single Right Answer as a Response to Coherence;280
5.3.3.4;6.3.4 Jürgen Habermas´s View: Between Facts and Norms Within Democratic Procedures of Opinion - and Will Formation;294
5.3.3.4.1;6.3.4.1 Introduction;294
5.3.3.4.2;6.3.4.2 Communicative Action as an Intervenient Attitude in the World;295
5.3.3.4.3;6.3.4.3 Communicative Action in the Relationship Between Constitutionalism and Democracy;301
5.3.3.4.4;6.3.4.4 Communicative Action in the Relationship Between Justification and Application;309
5.3.4;6.4 The Metaphysics of Balancing from the Perspective of the Proceduralist Account;320
5.3.4.1;6.4.1 Introduction;320
5.3.4.2;6.4.2 The First Outcome: The Construction of an Axiological Content in the Structure of Principles;325
5.3.4.3;6.4.3 The Second and Third Outcomes: The Confusion between Discourses of Justification and Discourses of Application and the Loss of Protection of Minorities;330
5.3.4.4;6.4.4 The Fourth Outcome: The Relativization and Misunderstanding of the ``Single Right Answer´´;335
5.3.4.5;6.4.5 The Final Analysis: The Problem of Rationality in Alexy´s Thinking;337
5.3.5;6.5 Final Words;341
6;Part III: The Concept of Limited Rationality;345
6.1;Chapter 7: Between Différance and Intersubjectivity: The Concept of Limited Rationality in Constitutional Democracy;346
6.1.1;7.1 Introduction;346
6.1.2;7.2 When Proceduralism and Deconstruction Are Placed Side by Side: The First Insight into the Limits of Reason;349
6.1.3;7.3 The Quest for Justice: A Dialogue Between Symmetry and Asymmetry?;355
6.1.3.1;7.3.1 Introduction;355
6.1.3.2;7.3.2 Is Really the Quest for Consensus Incompatible with Asymmetry? A Look Into Chantal Mouffe´s ``Agonist Model of Democracy´;358
6.1.3.3;7.3.3 The Internal Dialects Between Modern Equality and Individuality: The Symmetry and Asymmetry in Christoph Menke´s Account;365
6.1.3.4;7.3.4 The Resolution as a Non-Resolution: The ``Irresolvable But Productive Tension´´ Between Différance and Intersubjectivity in the Quest for Justice;371
6.1.4;7.4 Final Words;375
6.2;Chapter 8: Between Différance and Intersubjectivity: The Concept of Limited Rationality in the Realm of Constitutional Adjudication;378
6.2.1;8.1 Introduction;378
6.2.2;8.2 The Concept of Limited Rationality in the Realm of Legal Adjudication: Intersubjectivity and Différance in a Complementary Fashion;380
6.2.3;8.3 The Concept of Limited Rationality In German and Brazilian Constitutional Realities;386
6.2.4;8.4 When the Concept of Limited Rationality Meets Constitutional Cases;398
6.2.4.1;8.4.1 Introduction;398
6.2.4.2;8.4.2 The Crucifix Case;399
6.2.4.3;8.4.3 The Cannabis Case;405
6.2.4.4;8.4.4 The Ellwanger Case;411
6.2.5;8.5 Final Words;417
7;Conclusion;419
8;Bibliography;425